The Silliness of University Education

This article was written as a demonstration for my Political Science Students.  I agree with much of it, but not necessarily all of it.

The Silliness of University Education:
A collection of smart people doing dumb things
November 15, 2012
By John Berger

What is the American dream?  In centuries past, immigrants came to this country with a dream that anyone could work hard, own property, and live in prosperity regardless of class or social status.  Apparently this dream is now contingent on a college education.  A 22 year-old high school graduate who is working full time instead of attending class may be pursuing the old American dream, but society thinks he is "trying to figure out what to do with his life."  People must choose a path.  Path "A" means going to college, Path "B" means "settling" for a high school education alone.   To society, everyone on Path "B", other than the Zuckerbergs and Gates of the world, must be on Path B simply because they didn't have the opportunity to go to college.   To society, path B is not a choice, but a consequence.  Society is wrong.

The higher education system is broken and, until it is fixed, students should strongly consider waiting four or five years to attend college.  They may be better served by working full time and saving money, joining the military, starting a business, or even travelling than running full speed into education without a good idea of where they want to go.  The U.S. higher education system is broken largely because of three factors.  First, many young workers and innovators need  not go to college.  Second, the cost of attending a university is rising much faster than overall inflation and wages due to a corrupt student loan system.  Finally, learning institutions treat all degrees equally, and employers don't.

Alternative Education Should not be Dismissed
The founder of PayPal, Peter Thiel, sent shock-waves through the education landscape when he awarded fellowships of $100,000 each to youth under 20 years old, requiring them to drop out of college to become entrepreneurs. (CNET; Musil).  Vivek Wadhwa, an entrepreneur who teaches at Duke and Stanford, argued that Thiel "doesn't understand how important education is for the masses . . ." explaining that he worries about "a message that's getting out there to America that it's okay to drop out of school, that you don't have to get college.  Absolutely dead wrong." (Cnet; Musil)  Wadhwa is not alone.  Many critics excoriated Thiel for his plan, but their arguments fail to consider both sides of the argument.  Few people believe that education is bad, but Thiel's premise is that formal education is not worth the direct costs and opportunity costs.  For many students, Thiel is absolutely correct.

Learners now have more options than ever before with sites like academicearth.org and coursera.org, which offer free online courses from schools like Duke, Johns Hopkins, Stanford, MIT, and Harvard.  Motivated and dedicated individuals, particularly those who believe learning is essential for success, can find all the information they need for free.  Unfortunately, employers and governments don't recognize self-study as an accredited form of education.  As a result, students rush to get their various degrees in hoop-jumping, with little regard for actual learning.

The Value of a Degree is muted by Massive Costs
Critics of alternative education are quick to point out that traditional Bachelor's degrees have significant value.  One study, released by the Lumina Foundation and Georgetown University explained that the economy added 200,000 jobs for workers with bachelors degrees during the latest recession, with an additional two million more after it ended. (Huffington Post; Pope).  By contrast, according to the same study, nearly 6 million high-school-only jobs have been lost since the downturn began, and they are still declining even in the recovery. (Huffington Post; Pope). Furthermore, recent estimates suggest that bachelor's degree holders earn $1.3 million more in their lifetime than those who hold only a high school diploma.

While the statistics above are persuasive, data like these don't necessarily mean that alternative education is ineffective.  They simply suggest that employers are more willing to hire individuals with a formal education, possibly because those individuals are more dedicated and motivated than the pool of applicants who gave up after high-school.  However, it defies reason for an employer to pass up a highly qualified and intelligent person who chose a cheaper and better approach to education.   Imagine if college sports recruiters took such a silly approach:  "Well James is bigger, faster, stronger, and his stats are much better, but I'm going to go with Mark because he went to a better program."  It's ludicrous in the sports context, and it is ludicrous in the education context.

Critics of alternative education often fail to fully consider the opportunity costs, direct costs, and financing costs of traditional education. 

First, Students are giving up three to six years to pursue a bachelor's degree, limiting the amount of hours they can work, promotions they receive, and money they can save.   A student could spend four years saving up $50,000, which would be worth between $350,000 and $900,000 at retirement. (Future Value Calculator).

Second, the direct cost of education is going, for lack of a better word, "crazy."  Education has grown at a faster rate than inflation for 29 of the past 30 years. (the Atlantic).  Education has even grown at a faster rate than medical care for 27 of the past 30 years (the Atlantic).  Even adjusting for inflation the cost of attending a four year university has nearly doubled since 1990.  (nces.ed.gov).   The cost of education has essentially inflated by 190% since 1990 (nces.ed.gov), rising 86% faster than average wages. (ssa.gov)  The current average cost of attendance at four year institutions is $88,368 for four years. (nces.ed.gov). 




Why are the costs going up so fast?  The most reasonable argument is that costs are going up due to an insane demand for college education, as nearly 20 million students attend college each year in spite of rising costs. (asa.org).  However, students can only pay these high prices because of easy-to-get federal loans.

Third, U.S. citizens currently owe approximately $1 Trillion in total outstanding student loan debt, with roughly 864 billion in federal student loan debt.  (asa.org)  The average student loan balance for all age groups, including those individuals who went to school when it was cheaper, is $24,301. (asa.org).  Approximately 5.4 borrowers have one student loan currently in default, and only 37% of federal student loan borrowers between 2004 and 2009 managed to make timely payments without postponing payments or becoming delinquent. (asa.org).   As most new graduates aren't making payments, interest on the debt continues to balloon.  If a student borrows $50,000 she will likely accrue more than $3,000 a year in interest.

Combine the above factors and your potential costs, including opportunity costs, could easily be over a million dollars, significantly muting the "1.3 million in additional earnings" argument for bachelor's degrees.  And the cost of a bachelor's degree is apparently unrelated to wages or general inflation.  Universities will continue to raise tuition and fees so long as students can borrow the money to pay, while at the same time Universities will continue failing to increase the value of their product to match the rising costs.

All Degrees are NOT Created Equal

Consider the following list of Mid-Career Median Salaries for the following degrees: (Full List at Wall Street Journal)

Chemical Engineering: $107,000
Economics:  $98,600
Physics:  $97,300
Computer Science: $95,500
Math: $92,400
Marketing: $79,600
Political Science: $78,200
Business Management: $72,100
History: $71,000
English: $64,700
Graphic Design: $59,800
Criminal Justice: $56,300
Education: $52,000

Stop the presses!  Career earnings for a Computer Science major are approximately $1.4 Million more than earnings for a Graphic Design major.  That is more than the difference in career earnings between a bachelor's degree holder and a meager high-school graduate.

At the University of Utah, resident tuition for a junior in the graphic design program is $3,137.14 per 15 credits.  For a Computer Science major, tuition is--wait for it--$3,137.14 per 15 credits.  (University of Utah)  Clearly, cost is not associated with value.  Furthermore, the department of education gives loans to everyone who qualifies, regardless of their choice in major.  Education majors can borrow every bit as much as Chemical Engineering majors.  This is equivalent to allowing a borrower with decent credit borrow the same amount of money to purchase a 2007 Toyota Yaris as a 2013 BMW X5. 

Many educators argue that there is some intrinsic value of a well rounded education which cannot be calculated by potential salary.  Even if this is true, why must that well-rounded, liberal-arts education cost as much as a technical degree?  Furthermore, why can't students pursue such an education online or in the library?

In 1909, Dr. Charles William Elliot, president of Harvard University, was instrumental in publishing the Harvard Classics, a 51-volume anthology of classic works.   Dr. Elliot claimed that if you were to spend just 15 minutes a day reading  books that could fit on a five foot shelf, you could give yourself a proper liberal education.  (Gutenberg)

In 1909, access to education was limited to the elite and few other lucky individuals.  One solution to such a problem would be to spend trillions of dollars in private and public money, allowing individuals to gather in large stone buildings and text-message through art-history lectures.  A second solution--the solution proposed by Dr. Elliot--was to read books, a significantly more affordable approach.

--

While all education has significant value, not all education is created equal, and not all education must be taught in a traditional setting.  However, until employers and governments believe Dr. Elliot's approach might work, and so long as the government allows all students to borrow absurd amounts of money regardless of major, the demand, and cost, of college education will continue to skyrocket.

As this ridiculous pattern continues, students should strongly consider waiting four or five years to attend college.  They may be better served by working full time and saving money, joining the military, or starting a business than they will by running full speed into costly education without a good idea of where they want to go. 

Some might be concerned that this will delay their career and "big money" opportunities, but as explained above, most graduates can't even make their loan payments.  Additionally, 43% of young adults under 25 currently live at home anyway. (USA Today; Nasser).  We currently push young adults to get an education, but we need to focus on getting the right education in an efficient way.  We should start by eliminating the bad decision-making promoted by easy government financing.  Until then, students should strongly consider staying out of the pasture of education until they can cut through the crap.






Sources

C|net News. Steven Musil,  Thiel's college dropout plan scrutinized by '60 Minutes', available here.

Huffington Post. Justin Pope, College Costs: New Research Weighs the True Value of a College Education, available here.

American Student Assistance, Student Loan Debt Statistics, available here.

Investopedia Future Value Calculator, available here

the Atlantic; Niraj Chokshi, Education Costs Rising Faster than Health Care, available here.

National Center for Education Statistics (nces.ed.gov), Fast Facts: Tuition Costs of Colleges and Universities, available here.

Social Security Administration, National Average Wage Index, available here.

The Wall Street Journal, Salary Increase by Major, available here.

University of Utah, Undergraduate Tuition Per Semester, available here.

Project Gutenberg, Harvard Classics, available here.

Stand your Ground?

Nobody should reasonably believe I represent them as an attorney because of this post, and nobody should believe I am giving them any legal advice of any kind.

Also, I am an attorney, and I have a fair bit of criminal law experience, but I'm no expert on "Stand your Ground" laws.  Also, I have essentially no real understanding of Florida criminal law, though it may be similar to other state laws.

The George Zimmerman trial was very interesting.  I think the reporting on this trial was terrible, particularly reporting from those calling for a guilty verdict.  I don't know if they intended to mislead anyone, but many reporters did mislead people.  I think it's horrible that Trayvon died that night.

If you are upset that Zimmerman was acquitted, it must be for one of three reasons, right?  Either 1) you believe important facts were withheld from the Jury, 2) you believe the Jury got all the facts, but you believe they were just plain wrong, or 3) you believe the law in Florida is bad.

I don't see how a reasonable person could believe 1 or 2, but that's just me.  I'm going to focus on number 3.

There was no question in this case that George Zimmerman killed Trayvon Martin.  The question in this case was whether the killing was legally justified.  "Legally" justified, not morally or ethically.   As part of legal justification, the jury had to consider the following:

If George Zimmerman was not engaged in an unlawful activity and was attacked in any place where he had a right to be, he had no duty to retreat and had the right to stand his ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he reasonably believed that it was necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.

It seems that the Zimmerman case was not a typical case.  If Zimmerman hadn't followed Trayvon Martin, Martin wouldn't have confronted him.  So maybe Zimmerman is a bad guy for following Martin, but following someone in public is legal.  Zimmerman had a right to be wherever Martin was.  Maybe you care that Zimmerman was a "wannabe cop" and that he "stalked" Martin that night, but the real issue in the case came after that stuff happened.
Apparently the Jurors believed Zimmerman approached Martin, Martin confronted Zimmerman, a struggle ensued, Zimmerman was injured and he reasonably believed that deadly force was necessary to prevent great bodily harm or his own death.

If you believe the Jurors believed that, what exactly is the problem with the verdict?  Pretend, for a moment, that you are a Florida State Representative.  Your job is to draft a new law to cover these situations generally.  This new law would apply to all self defense cases.   What would you change?

Most people would allow a person to use deadly force if he reasonably fears for his life.  But, many people say they would eliminate the use of self defense in cases where the killer could have reasonably retreated.   They would want the Jury to hear an instruction similar to this:

"The Killer may have had a duty to retreat before using deadly force.  If you find that the Killer could have reasonably retreated without increasing the risk of great bodily harm or death, then the killing was not justifiable."

I have a couple questions about this.

First, when does this duty to retreat (or analyze your retreat) kick in?  What if I hear a burglar going through my things in the other room? Do I have a duty to retreat before I can investigate?  Or does my duty to retreat only kick after I believe the burglar is going to greatly harm or kill me? (i.e., after I'm stuck in a small room with him.) In Zimmerman, is it enough that he could have retreated before Martin confronted him, or did the duty to retreat only kick after the fight began?  Do we really want to require people to run away from danger before they feel they are in danger?

Second, would you want to use the above instruction in all cases?  What if there are other people around that might get hurt?  How sure do you have to be that they are in danger before you decide not to run?   What if you are in your home, your car, or your office?  Do you have to break out a back window and jump into the bushes?

Imagine the following hypothetical.  You are sitting on a bench in a store and a massive white guy punches you in the face.  He knocks out your teeth.  You get up, he smashes your head against a wall.   He turns around, WWE style, and yells, "There's more where that came from, and you won't ever get up again."   You believe you could outrun him, but you aren't certain.  So you pull out your weapon and he rushes you.  Should you have a duty to turn around and run if you think you are faster than him?  Or can you use deadly force?

If you believe deadly force is justified in the above hypothetical, but you don't believe deadly force was justified in the Zimmerman case, please explain why.   Also, how would you draft a law that would apply to the Zimmerman case, but wouldn't apply to the hypothetical?

Laws aren't perfect, and they are generally drafted to apply to the common occurrences, not the outlier cases.  It seems that making specific laws for every circumstance is virtually impossible.  I hope that anger over the Zimmerman trial leads to individuals getting more education and more information about the legal system.  I hope it leads people to work toward drafting "better" legislation.  I'm afraid it will cause people to become cozily entrenched in their ignorance.

Gay Marriage and the Law

I grew up in Utah.  I am a Mormon.  I believe in God, and I believe God commands us that we should not have sexual relations outside of marriage.  I believe God wants marriage within the church to be exclusively reserved for unions between one man and one woman.  I also believe that we are to love all of God's children to the best of our ability, and that we will be judged by how we choose to cast our stones.

I would ask anyone who reads this to refrain from inferring any of my other beliefs.

The issue of marriage between two homosexuals is extremely controversial.  That's because it deals with sex, right?  I assume that far more people will be judged harshly for their greed, intolerance, wrath, adultery, dishonesty, and selfishness than for their gay relationships.   But I don't see a proposition 8 type fight over banning selfishness.   I also assume that the judgment for promiscuity and fornication will be similar to the judgment for gay sex.  I wouldn't be at all surprised if Barney Stinson were judged more harshly for his heterosexual relationships than Neil Patrick Harris will for his homosexual relationship.  But I don't see a proposition 8 type fight over banning fornication.

The Gay-Marriage battle-waters are murky.  It's unclear exactly what the strategy is or what benefits the warriors intend to reap.  

The waters are murky because:

Gay sex is legal.

Fornication is legal (or laws against it are not enforced)

Adoption by one gay person is legal

Contracts between Gays are legal

Gays can have power of attorney for one another

Gays can live together

Gays can jointly own property

Gays can devise all of their property to another gay person in their last will and testament.

Do members of the anti-gay-marriage crowd have a problem with any of those items listed above?  If so, why not legislate against it?  Why not have a "don't-ask don't-tell" policy for property owners.  "You may share real estate so long as you don't tell anyone you are gay."   Why did Lawrence v. Texas effectively end the public debate over sexual privacy?   I don't hear calls for a proposed constitutional amendment making gay sex illegal.

It seems clear that for many things, like fornication, LDS church members and others of similar faith have no problem separating morality and eternal law from the legislative and judicial system here on earth.    In the past, some Christians have sought to enforce laws against unmarried cohabitation.  They have tried to force unwed mothers to get married or give up the baby.  They have enacted legislation allowing police to investigate and prosecute individuals accused of sodomy.  

But in this day and age, the majority of the country chooses to determine what is "right" and "wrong" independently of what is "legal."    It is possible to believe that two unwed partners should not have kids together without making a law against it.  It's possible to believe that men should not have sexual relations with other men without making a law against it.

Currently none of the sanctity of marriage laws are effectively stopping any actual behavior.  Gays still live together, love each other, are intimate, adopt kids, start businesses, own property, and care for one another in the hospital, yet the line in the sand has been drawn at the "symbol" of marriage.   The concern must be over the acknowledgement by society that gay unions are equal to straight marriage, and I don't see anything in the constitution that gives marriage a higher status than any other type of relationship.  

I believe everyone is entitled to their opinion, and that personal opinions about morality and spirituality can and should be involved in political discussions.  But the current debate has forced many believers to engage in straw-man arguments, put forth faulty logic, and cherry pick misleading data.  That type of justification strategy undermines the credibility of its source.  I don't think anyone should be afraid to stand up and say, "I believe God wants us to pass the following law: _________" yet so many engage in "logical" debates about things that are of a spiritual nature.     If you want to convince the voters that they should follow God's will, discuss God and Jesus Christ with them, not Caesar.